New EEP draft: Pinning operator ^ in patterns
Mon Jan 18 10:47:43 CET 2021
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 02:32:21AM +0900, zxq9 wrote:
> On 2021/01/16 0:35, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
> > And I want to get clarity about exactly why so many developers are worried
> > about this particular proposed change, and therefore try to look thoroughly
> > at the arguments.
> > It is as you say a fundamental detail in the language.
> > 1) Would the language be a better language with a mandatory pinning operator?
> At the cost of *adding* something arbitrarily hard to research syntax
Someone sidetracked right off into "it is bad to add this feature".
> to "solve" a problem that is demonstrated to not be at all a problem in
> the testimony of every voice on list? The real problem, as has been
Not every voice, but many loud. I think "not be a problem at all" is an
> highlighted repeatedly, is naive programmers writing too-large
I think you are calling programmers that are forced to maintain old large
"organically grown" codebases "naive". It hurts.
> convoluted functions. If you can't tell where a variable was assigned in
> a single-assignment you need better glasses or shorter functions.
It is still a mental burden; having to verify and remember where a variable
was first seen. I can surely do without that. Inventing function names
to artifically create shorter functions is also a burden.
> The answer is "no".
Your answer is no.
/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
More information about the erlang-questions